Have you heard of Rugby?

I mean Rugby, Tennessee, of course.

I had meant to write a little piece about that town but it seemed as though I got sidetracked what with current events. But it’s good to get away from the depressing stories for a moment.

I wish I could say I’ve been to Rugby, Tennessee; it looks fascinating to me. The town was founded by English writer Thomas Hughes, in 1880. Rugby is on the Cumberland Mountains plateau, in East Tennessee, and according to what I’ve read, is rather off the beaten path, not near a main highway.

Thomas Hughes is best known as the writer of the Victorian-era book, Tom Brown’s Schooldays.

Hughes also printed a small weekly newspaper during his time there, The Rugbeian. Its stated purpose was “To promote a cordial feeling of brotherhood not only between the two branches of the English-speaking race but also between the different sections of the country.”

The linked article tells you the rest of the story, and includes illustrations of the site. The unfortunate thing is that ultimately the project failed due to a number of factors, which the article explains. The remoteness of the site, as well as harsh climate, crop failures, and so on eventually defeated Hughes’ plans.

Hughes hoped to strengthen ties between England and the people of Tennessee. The people of that time were aware of their English (or British, for those who insist on Scots-Irish settlements as dominant) roots. It would have been nice if the town could have prospered and become a sort of intercultural center.

As it is, Rugby is still a place of interest. It has the only surviving Victorian library in the United States, which contains 7,000 volumes, contributed by both British and American literary donors.of the time.

The site of the boarding house at Rugby, Newbury House, is said to be haunted. I suppose that’s a tourist draw.

The pictures are beautiful. Take a look at them, and if you live in the area I envy you; I would visit if I could.

Troubling Events in Reading

The American media haven’t given much coverage to the incident in Reading, where a Libyan ‘refugee’ or ‘asylum seeker’ stabbed several people who were sitting in a park there. It does seem as though the media want to downplay these things; we mustn’t commit ‘wrong-think’ or have any unfavorable thoughts about anyone. Both the UK media and our American luegenpresse seem to be working from the same playbook.

Over the years as I’ve watched this big transfer of peoples from one side of the globe to the other, I was baffled at the way in which the Powers That Be welcomed people who were unknown to us, as far as their history, their origins, their background, their character. I wondered why anyone would take a gamble on people who were complete unknowns to us, especially as many of these same mystery people would take a notion to do something destructive — even after we had taken them in and given them homes and all the necessities of life. And yet The Powers That Be continue to welcome similar peoples whose background and life history were a blank; no paper trail.

This is the policy in all Western countries, it seems. Evidently our government(s) are compelled by the U.N to take ‘x’ number of ”refugees” per year. And they are still apparently unvetted; if they are vetted, then it must be a very careless, ineffective procedure.

Would any sane person open their door to a complete stranger, about whom we know nothing, and take them in as we would a close family member? That’s what is amounts to.

My friends in England were uneasy when mass immigration started to change the face of London; at the time I thought they were overreacting but I soon saw that their concerns were legitimate. Yet this very natural and healthy wariness of unknown strangers is now a thought crime in some Western countries. And with no regard for the will or wishes of the native people of England, on it goes, leading to more incidents like the one in Reading.

Obviously there is an intention to create this situation; it is not a question of ineptitude, but  a definite intention.

With all the incessant talk of ”diversity” and its importance, do the people in control not realize that their ‘diversity’ will be a monotonous uniformity as the peoples are all herded together in 21st century Babel scenarios?

And the people who become victims, like those people in Reading, are just collateral damage or something, in the minds of those who are treating human beings as pawns in their game. It’s tragic.





‘We don’t see…’

The rest of the sentence — you’ve probably heard it — is ”color.” The latest usage of it is ”Patriots don’t see color.” Because ‘unity’, which requires pretense or blindness.

There’s a piece at Heritage and Destiny, written by a professional actor, about how this idea has changed British TV programming, and the casting of roles in the many productions.

If you watch, or have watched, much British TV you will know that the roles are very much racially cast; laws require the exact  percentages of various ‘minorities’  who are to play the various parts. And reality has no part in this. We’ve seen the idea at work here in the U.S., what with productions like the ‘Hamilton’ musical, in which all roles were played by various minorities. The idea of seeing Alexander Hamilton, a man of Scottish ancestry, played by a Hispanic (or is it Latino?) man, is rather confusing. And the other characters, of Anglo-Saxon or otherwise European origin, being obviously nonwhite is likewise odd. But political ends must be served and audiences must be reprogrammed or something.

The article writer points out the harm done to historical accuracy by casting on the basis of race and ethnicity. After all until fairly recently Britain was a homogeneous country which had received little immigration. The effect of the ”colorblind casting’ (which is anything but colorblind) is to delude the young people, especially, into believing the official assertions that ‘Britain has always been multicultural and multiracial.’ This is nothing but deceiving and gaslighting. Yet it seems that the tactic has led a lot of unknowing citizens into acceptance, as they begin not to notice the incongruity and artificiality of it all.

As the writer indicates it all amounts to theft of a culture and heritage, by misrepresenting it in the name of some ‘social justice’ goal. The idea would seem to be that Britain was wrong in not having large populations of foreign residents in the past, because, you know, racism. So they must make amends by going along with the pretense that millions of immigrants have always lived in the UK; in fact, they built it.

This is part of what we are told about our country: ”Immigrants built America.They made America great, not you old-stock Anglos.’

Read the piece at Heritage and Destiny.

Off-topic somewhat: Something I always wondered about: in the 19th-20th centuries there was a nationalist mania in many European colonies, which eventually led to India, among others,  putting the colonial powers out of their country. India was one example, and it seems they no sooner got what they wanted, their independence (at the cost of bloodshed) and they are knocking at England’s door, asking to live there. Huh? What was all the fuss in India about if all you wanted was entree to England for life?

I think I know the answer but it is still mystifying.



The Magna Carta anniversary

Yesterday, June 15, was the anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede. This year would mark 805 years since that document was signed. The article at the New American was published in 2015, and obviously much has happened in that short five-year period. The article mentions that we have Magna Carta to thank for the ‘Rule of Law’ as well as for the freedoms we enjoy.  It seems to me that our freedoms are less than secure, to put it mildly.

I don’t think anyone foresaw today’s events, even as recently as 2015. It’s ironic when we think about what 2020 has brought, both for the UK and for the U.S. Will we even be able to talk about it by next year at this time?

Another ironic point: The Runnymede Trust, which we usually hear of in association with this anniversary, is actually a self-described racial equality think tank. Could King John ever have envisioned this situation?

The effect of diversity in Britain

At Cambrian Dissenters,  Daniel Thomas writes about the current conflicts over the vandalism to historic statues and the overall effects of ‘diversity’ in the UK.

I watched a little of a live feed of the Nationalists’ demo which attempted to defend the statues, while counter-demonstrators carried ”anti-racist’ signs, depicting the statues’ defenders as motivated by ”racism.” But that’s always the charge: anybody who is not in favor of the left’s destruction of Western civilization is a “racist.” Specifically if you are an individual of insufficient melanin.

What I saw of the demo amounted to nothing much other than the usual monotonous chants and the usual accusatory signs being carried and waved among the crowd. I did notice that the heavily-padded police looked as though many were young females, or maybe diminutive males, but they didn’t look very formidable. I suppose they are not meant to be big or intimidating; it might offend someone and besides women must be included in order to serve “equality”.

But to the content of the Cambrian Dissenters piece: the writer notes that while Britain is subjected to mandates of “diversity”, and the destruction of their honored heroes’ statues,  in India there are statues being erected of that country’s gods and great men. As always, the immigrants have one standard for themselves and one for their host country, Britain. If only England had the confidence they once had, and asserted their national identity. If only.

Here’s one hopeful sign

After such a dire week  in both the UK and the USA, one slightly hopeful sign is at least something.

The Daily Mail reports that, in the midst of the orgy of destruction, one historic statue is saved — at least for now. The statue of Lord Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scouts, was allowed to remain for the time being, despite being put on a protesters’ list as scheduled for destruction. A group of former Boy Scouts directly intervened to stop the destruction of Lord Baden Powell’s statue, as the Daily Mail article tells us.

“Former Scouts, some from more than 100 miles away, had rushed to Dorset and formed a ring of steel around the bronze monument fending off a disposal crew in Poole Quay at 7.30am as the campaign to remove 92 historic monuments in Britain hurtles on.”

I think this was a bold and brave act on their part.  Who has done anything like that in the US to stop the wanton vandals who have destroyed so many of our monuments?

Who knows at this point whether the statue of Lord Baden-Powell will be allowed to stand? I can only hope that the authorities will exert their power to protect the statue rather than caving, as so many others have, to the demands of the wreckers.

The Daily Mail article says that the statue-destroyers have a list of no less than 92 targets for destruction — various statues that they deem politically incorrect, “racist”, insensitive or whatever. This is crazy.

And why, I must ask, is their arbitrary and obviously biased assertion accepted simply on their word? Should not the local people or the citizenry as a whole have a say in this? Why are complaints of one or two people, who obviously have axes to grind, sufficient to allow a historic statue, often something that is aesthetically pleasing as well, to be reduced to a pile of rubble? This is just wrong, whether it’s here in the US or in the UK.

When will enough be enough?

We’ve seen or read about a statue of Columbus which was smashed and beheaded and then thrown in a river. Others were defaced with hideous scrawls we call ”graffiti”. Protesters have urinated on the statues or monuments,  especially the Confederate statues. Why do we allow and passively enable this ugly behavior and crumple at every demand?

Bravo to those former Scouts who did something. I hope the vandals are not given a victory this time.

Anglo-Canadians and Trudeau

The Canadian media report that Justin Trudeau seems to be doing his best to further alienate and isolate Anglo-Canadians. He’s been busy like all Western ”leaders” going through the motions of virtue-signalling, joining in the kowtowing at the PC altar.

The event which Trudeau attended was to call attention to allegations of ‘racism’ and to commemorate the death of George Floyd. But with all the concern over racial injustice and discrimination, there seems to be no consideration afforded to the Anglo-Saxon Canadians, who are of course very much part of the Old Stock founders of Canada, those who settled the area which became Canada. Surely the people who were responsible for clearing the wilderness and making the place habitable should be given some credit, and treated with the respect due to those who made the country and its culture. Instead, they are being pushed aside in the name of  ‘diversity and inclusion’, as always, but it seems the Anglophone Canadians are being “included out.” What exactly are their plans for the old-stock Canadians?

In this country,  the old-stock Americans, descendants of those who colonized and made America a livable place, are likewise treated as disposable, and slated for replacement and absorption into the polyglot Babel being shaped right now in the wake of all the turmoil.

The issue, of course, is ‘racism’, and Trudeau and his fellow world ”leaders” want  it known that there are good and evil sides in this scenario, and of course the evil side is embodied in the European-descended people, in Canada as in the U.S. and all of former Christendom. So our ”leaders” have made it clear.

The article quotes many protesters who came to this event and their grievances but who will give a thought to the very real grievances of the Anglophone Canadians? The very flawed leftist idea of ‘racial justice’ is at the core of the attitude of the ‘leaders’ of the Anglosphere countries; it seems to be about punishing the successful and promoting what the leaders call ‘protected groups‘ to the place of honor. That’s more vengeful than just; it speaks of envy and resentment, not ‘fairness’  or equality. Casting a people aside as if they had outlived their ‘usefulness’ is all too typical of the left’s cynicism.





The South, then and now

This has been a bad week for the South, what with the ‘removal’ of the monument to that great American, General Robert E. Lee, and the removal of the monument to Rear Admiral Raphael Semmes, who was called “the Nelson of the Confederacy. In addition to that, the Marines have now banned the Confederate Battle Flag, in yet another blow to the South and its people.

“I have determined it is time to act to exclude from our Corps public displays of the battle flag carried by the Confederate Army during the American Civil War,” Berger wrote. “In doing so, I am mindful that many people believe that flag to be symbol of heritage or regional pride. But I am also mindful of the feelings of pain and rejection of those who inherited the cultural memory and present effects of the scourge of slavery in our country.”

In other words, the military is now converged. And in other words, Southern heritage is less valuable than someone’s subjective feelings. This is all happening so fast that it makes heads spin. Is it a coincidence that this is happening as our country is under siege? Do they think that with all the turmoil we won’t notice this so much?

I write about the South and the people of the South because they are one of the two major branches of Anglo-Saxon colonial stock Americans, along with the New England branch of our family. As of now it seems that the South is the home of the largest number of Anglo-Americans, as many of the New England colonist stock went west, and immigrants replaced them.

I happened to find the following piece about the South, written in 1960, (some 60 years ago) and reading it, we can see how much the South has changed — or has been changed.

Note the statistics about the predominant ethnicity of the South in the colonial days.

‘The South of today, as of yesterday, is a family — not altogether a happy family, yet happier than most and certainly closer knit than any of the other regional clans in the nation. It is a big family, both in geographic spread and in diversity of its members; and yet all members are bound together by a tribal identiy which transcends state lines (although they, too, are important family factors). From Tidewater Virginia to Texas, the family ties of blood, belief, or behavior distinguish Southerners from other Americans, and there is a like-mindedness on ways of life (not just on race relations) which is almost incomprehensible to the Northerner.

Despite a reputation for quick temper, the Southerner is amiable, friendly, and tolerant of all save those who would interfere with his family life. Southerners will wrangle among themselves over their own code of conduct, and practice it with relative degrees of faithfulness, but they will draw together in quick resentment against the non-Southerner who proposes to alter their conduct by compulsion of word or deed. There is a regional consciousness which virtually establishes a “mutual defense alliance” among Southern states. An attack against any one is considered to be an attack against them all.

A major portion of this common bond stems from a heritage which might be termed Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, North European, or Celtic Teutonic. The manifestations of that heritage have remained meaningful and measurable for centuries, and even today they account for some of the Southern character traits which perplex and sometimes exasperate non-Southerners.

An understanding of the Southern character (if the reader will go along with the concept that there is such a central character typical of the white South) comes with study of the Southerner’s antecedents back through the centuries.

An interesting facet of any such study is the quite obvious but little-noted diagonal transposition of North European culture to the American South. Through the Colonial and Revolutionary War days, and during the earlier days of the United States as such, the Anglo-Saxon atmosphere was apparent throughout all of the New World which had been settled by the British. It was in this atmosphere that the South developed, and it was this atmosphere which the South retained as successive waves of immigrants swept into the North, there to dilute the customs and traditions which remained relatively unchanged in the South. Thus the South escaped much of the influx of new ideas, new peoples, and of new practices which were poured into the melting pot of the North.

The South went through its “melting pot” phase early in the game, with the result that the French and German Protestants, along with the handfuls of other non-British peoples, were absorbed and assimilated into a way of life reflective of Anglo-Saxon traditions. All this took place in the years before the Yankee slave traders had begun to discharge their profitable cargoes at Southern ports. Thus there developed a regional consciousness in the South, stemming from common problems and a common ancestry, while the North remained in a constant state of flux.

In both population and political outlook, the South remained a microcosm of early America which brought forth the United States of America and which laid the basis for the peculiarly successful form of constitutional, republican government which has given the nation unparalleled prosperity, progress, and personal freedom.

There is a definite correlation between the complexion of the Southern states today and that of the early Americans who wrested their independence from the British Crown. As evidence of that, look at these percentages of nationality reflected in the nation’s first census — 1790:  English — 82.1%; Scottish — 7.0; Irish — 1.9; German — 5.6; Dutch — 2.5, and French –.6. That same sort of overwhelming identification with Anglo-Saxon (Teutonic) Europe characterizes the South of today. Is it any wonder that differences should exist in the outlook of persons with that cultural heritage as contrasted with those whose national ties are with the Balkan, Mediterranean, African, or Asiatic nations?

For one thing, it has meant that the South has continued as the most homogeneous section of the country, that region where, except for the distinct separation of the white and black races, there has been greatest assimilation of all persons into the political, social, and cultural pattern of the existing dominant groups. The South has fewer enclaves of non-assimilable population groups than any part of the nation; it has fewer “ghettoes,” fewer “foreign element” problems, fewer language difficulties, and more harmony in civic and community functions than any area of equal size in the nation.”

It’s too bad that the South has lost its original character thanks to demographic changes and now, with this new hostility towards the South on the part of those in power, things are not likely to improve, I am sad to say.

3 Million new ‘citizens’?

As most of us have probably read by now, Boris Johnson says he is prepared to welcome 3 million emigrants from Hong Kong.

This is the result of China’s proposed new security laws, which many Hong Kong residents fear as being too restrictive.

Under the proposed arrangement, these Hong Kong residents, or at least those with the appropriate passports would be allowed to enter and to work in the UK, ultimately being awarded UK citizenship in theory.

I can’t help asking why it is that whenever a country experiences some problem, such as war, economic problems, or in this case fears of new restrictions on liberties or rights, a Western country somehow ”owes” it to the people in question to provide a new home for them, along with valued citizenship? It used to always be said that the U.S. was too often the world’s policeman, but now our role is more like that of Santa Claus and somehow we feel obligated to provide for others — while many of our own folk are homeless or, in the wake of the ”pandemic”, unemployed or destitute. But never mind; we are still the rich uncle to the world, always room for one more. Or in the UK’s case, 3 million more.

Keeping in mind that Britain is a small island, very densely populated, and besieged by people attempting to enter the UK by any means, fair or foul — it makes little sense to add another few million to the already high total of immigrants.  Ever-increasing development is a problem. Yet the solution is always more immigration.

Years ago Andrew Neather made a statement (not intended to be heard by the citizenry) that there was a plan to increase immigration so as to ”rub the right’s noses in Diversity”, I suppose to punish those who were ‘xenophobic’ enough to wish to limit immigration. Even though the public eventually heard this conversation about the immigration agenda, and ostensibly those involved were supposedly chastened by the brouhaha,it seems as if the plan rolls on. Immigration in large numbers is an established, always-in-progress agenda, just as it is in just about all Western countries.

As for the Hong Kong immigrants, I expect not all will go to the UK. Parts of Canada have received many Hong Kong immigrants, and as a result places like Vancouver, B.C. have been transformed. I am sure the idea is to further ”fundamentally transform” the UK as well as Canada — and I’m certain the U.S.A. will be expected to welcome some of the 3 million. Now, it may be that they are quite Westernized because of being part of the British empire for those many years. It may be that they are educated and skilled and speak excellent English. Nonetheless is there no other solution than the predictable practice of setting them up somewhere in an Anglosphere country? Is there some kind of law that compels this?

The globalists, in quest of their ”utopian” One World anti-nation, seem determined that Britain is never to be the home of its historic population, but instead to be a polyglot nation, severed from its historical roots, and simply a place to plant any or all displaced people. That is an injustice to the indigenous people of Britain, and once that country is transformed completely the nations lose more of their true character.



Apposite excerpts from HPL

“The main struggle which awaits Americanism is not with reaction, but with radicalism. Our age is one of restless and unintelligent iconoclasm, and abounds with shrewd sophists who use the name “Americanism” to cover attacks on that institution itself.

Such familiar terms and phrases as “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom of speech” are being distorted to cover the wildest forms of anarchy, whilst our old representative institutions are being attacked as “un-American” by foreign immigrants who are incapable both of understanding them or of devising anything better.

This country would benefit from a wider practice of sound Americanism, with its accompanying recognition of an Anglo-Saxon source. Americanism implies freedom, progress, and independence; but it does not imply a rejection of the past, nor a renunciation of traditions and experience.” view the term in its real, practical, and unsentimental meaning.
–  from The United Amateur, July 1919


Old England and the Hyphen

Of the various intentional fallacies exhaled like miasmic vapours from the rotting cosmopolitanism of vitiated American politics, and doubly rife during these days of European conflict, none is more disgusting than that contemptible subterfuge of certain foreign elements whereby the legitimate zeal of the genuine native stock for England’s cause is denounced and compared to the unpatriotic disaffection of those working in behalf of England’s enemies. The Prussian propagandists and Irish irresponsibles, failing in their clumsy efforts to use the United States as a tool of vengeance upon the Mistress of the Seas, have seized with ingenious and unexpected eagerness on a current slogan coined to counteract their own traitorous machinations, and have begun to fling the trite demand “America first” in the face of every American who is unable to share their puerile hatred of the British Empire.

In demanding that American citizens impartially withhold love and allegiance from any government save their own, thereby binding themselves to a policy of rigid coldness in considering the fortunes of their Mother Country, the Prusso-Hibernian herd have the sole apparent advantage of outward technical justification. If the United States were truly the radical, aloof, mongrelised nation into which they idealise it, their plea might possibly be more appropriate. But in comparing the lingering loyalty of a German-American for Germany, or of an Irish-American for Ireland, with that of a native American for England, these politicians make their fundamental psychological error.

England, despite the contentions of trifling theorists, is not and never will be a really foreign country; nor is a true love of America possible without a corresponding love for the British race and ideals that created America. The difficulties which caused the severance of the American Colonies from the rest of the Empire were essentially internal ones, and have no moral bearing on this country’s attitude toward the parent land in its relations with alien civilisations. Just as Robert Edward Lee chose to follow the government of Virginia rather than the Federal Union in 1861, so did the Anglo-American Revolutionary leaders choose local to central allegiance in 1775. Their rebellion was in itself a characteristically English act, and could in no manner annul the purely English origin and nature of the new republic.

American history before the conflict of 1775-1783 is English history, and we are lawful heirs of the unnumbered glories of the Saxon line. Shakespeare and Milton, Dryden and Pope, Young and Thomson, Johnson and Goldsmith, are our own poets; William the Conqueror, Edward the Black Prince, Elizabeth, and William of Nassau are our own royalty; Crecy, Poictiers, and Agincourt are our own victories; Lord Bacon, Sir Isaac Newton, Hobbes, Locke, Sir Robert Boyle, and Sir William Herschel are our own philosophers and scientists; what true American lives, who would wish, by rejecting an Englishman’s heritage, to despoil his country of such racial laurels?

Let those men be silent, who would, in envy, deny to the citizens of the United States the right to cherish and revere the ancestral honours that are theirs, and to remain faithful to the Anglo-Saxon ideals of their English forefathers! Since the establishment of a republic by the Englishmen of the American Colonies, millions of non- British persons have been admitted to share the liberty which English hands created. In many cases, these immigrants have proved valuable accessions, and when accepting fully the ideals of the Anglo-American culture, those of them who are of North European blood have become completely amalgamated with the American people. Germans, in particular, being of identical racial stock, are able to fuse quickly and wholly into the Colonial population. But as they become Americans, so must they also, in a sense, become Englishmen.

When the Elector of Hanover, a thorough German, acceded to the English throne, it was his duty to become an English monarch; and in a similar way it is an obligation of all other non-English individuals, princes or peasants, to adopt Anglo-Saxon ideals when they come to reap the advantages of an Anglo-Saxon nation. That millions of virile Germans have done so, is a gratifying fact to consider. But since alien immigration has far exceeded normal proportions, it is but natural that we have among us an alarmingly vast body of foreigners from various countries who are totally unable to appreciate Anglo-American traditions. If not still attached to their respective nations, they are at least prone to regard the United States as a sort of spontaneously evolved territory without previous history or ancestry.

Forgetting the Saxon inheritance that gave us language, laws, and liberty, they speak of America as a composite nation whose civilisation is a compound of all existing cultures; a melting pot of mongrelism wherein it is a crime for a man to know his own grandfather’s name. They prate of Americanism as something of autochthonous growth, neglecting or unwilling to assign England the credit for its origin; and presuming to blame any citizen who is more just than they in his appreciation of the Mother Land. More guileful immigrants use their “Americanism” as a blind for treason. Leaving their own countries in dissatisfaction, they assume the cloak of American citizenship; organize and finance conspiracies with American money; and finally, with an audacity almost ironical, call upon the United States for help when overtaken by justice!

Half the detestable violence of the Irish “Fenians” and “Sinn Fein” ruffians was hatched in America by those who dare drivel about such a thing as “neutrality”! Others continue to serve their own countries under the all-enveloping American mantle. Prussian-American patriots deep in the sanctimonious circles of “Americanism” and pacifism are at the same time secretly destroying American property for the benefit of the Prussian cause. And these are the sort of worthies who compare their treacherous anti-American acts with the traditional affection of a real American of the land which gave birth to the American nation!

The very small surviving flock of native Fourth-of-July England-haters must not be charged with that moral delinquency which attaches to the foreign agitators. These belated Revolutionists mean well, and are to be tolerated with kindness. They head that amusing element which applauds every Englishman who becomes naturalised in the United States, but which denounces with unmerciful inconsistency every American who, like the late Henry James, renews ancestral ties with Great Britain.

Summing up, we may well declare it folly to taunt the American lover of Old England with the cry of “Hyphenate!” His passion is not, like that of the Prussian or Irish “hyphenate”, based exclusively on personal ancestry; in his affection for the parent Kingdom he is but reiterating his devotion to the ideals of the daughter Republic; he is giving to his country a double loyalty!”

– from The Conservative, Vol. 2, No. 3, 1916